Alarming lack of science behind European wireless tech health alert

A European politician has decided that, despite evidence to the contrary, …

As we reported yesterday, the Council of Europe has released a report that recommends that its member states treat the radiation used in wireless communication as a potential health hazard, one on par with cigarettes and genetically modified foods. States are encouraged to take measures to limit exposure, such as encouraging a return to wired phone lines and banning the use of WiFi in schools. Those are pretty radical responses for what remains a purely hypothetical risk—how did the report end up being so extreme?

Fortunately, the report itself provides some hints as to how how its author came to his conclusions. In doing so, it provides a caution about how politicians can take ambiguous science and latch onto some evidence selectively, creating a severely biased perspective. Most worryingly, it shows how they can do their best to ensure that others end up adopting the same perspective.

Wireless technology and health risks

It's worth taking the time to do a quick recap of what we know about the potential health risks from wireless radiation. Many studies have looked at the possibility that the use of cellphones is associated with increased risk of cancer. However, almost all of them have significant methodological limitations, as they rely on things like self-reported usage patterns, which are often unreliable. In the end, the results have been mixed: some studies find an elevated risk, others don't, and all are looking at periods shorter than the typical incubation time for some types of tumors. They also rely on exposures that occurred years ago, when the pattern of use and the cellular technology being used were significantly different.

If the epidemiology is mixed, the biology isn't. There's no well-described mechanism by which non-ionizing radiation can induce long-term biological changes, although it can cause short-term heating of tissues. Given the absence of a mechanism and the ambiguous population studies, there is no clear evidence of a long-term health risk to cellular phones. WiFi hardware hasn't been tested to anywhere near the same extent.

There is far less ambiguity when it comes to short-term effects beyond heating of tissues. As we've noted previously, a variety of studies that we have covered in the past show that people who claim to be electrosensitive are incapable of determining whether there is an active wireless signal in their vicinity. These studies appear to be definitive, as they involve well-controlled experiments. That isn't to say that people aren't experiencing the symptoms they claim, simply that they are misattributing the cause.

That said, scientific ambiguity tends to breed controversy, especially when it involves public safety, and wireless health risks are no exception. Researchers in the field have reasonable disagreements about what each others' work has shown, but for wireless health risks, a whole cottage industry has sprung up, ranging from industry-sponsored advocacy to credentialed scientists who have produced one-sided and misleading claims of clear health dangers.

The former is often relatively easy to identify. The latter, however, is often difficult to spot, because the people promoting their viewpoint often have no obvious reasons for doing so, and the information they promote often seems scientific. For example, the BioInitiative Report was prepared by people with some relevant experience, and cites peer-reviewed literature extensively. Nevertheless, a careful reading shows that many of these citations are misleading; in some examples, its authors focus on single results from a publication that comes to conclusions opposite to the one being claimed.

As a result, it's essential that anyone wading into the topic carefully evaluate all the evidence being presented.

An unfortunate example

The Council of Europe report is a prime example of what happens when someone forgoes that careful evaluation. For that, we can apparently thank a member of Luxembourg's Les Verts, one Jean Huss. As far as Huss is concerned, the data is clear: "non-ionising frequencies, be they sourced from extremely low frequencies, power lines, or certain high frequency waves used in the fields of radar, telecommunications and mobile telephony, appear to have more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on plants, insects and animals as well as the human body even when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values."

How does he back up this and other claims? Huss apparently has accepted the Bioinitiative report as accurate, when even a cursory glance of the studies it references will show that they are misrepresented therein. He favors the work of a single French doctor who claims to have validated electrosensitivity, and makes no mention of the other studies that have failed to. He also considers Sweden's political decision to recognize electrosensitivity to be evidence that it exists.

Finally, he accepts anecdotal reports of elevated birth defects in farm animals as a sign of wireless signals' potential to harm; whale strandings and bee colony collapse also get blamed on the wireless industries. Based on the report's description of the hearings that led to these conclusions, Huss was warned that much of this evidence was anecdotal. His response is to complain about the people who delivered these warnings.

Given this biased reading of the evidence and those delivering it, it's shouldn't be a surprise that the report claims that the health risks of wireless tech "has clear parallels with other current issues, such as the licensing of medication, chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals or genetically modified organisms."

But the problems go beyond the conclusions, as Huss has inserted language that suggests future deliberations include a bias towards the same conclusions. The report suggests that the CoE should "pay heed to and protect" what he terms the "early warning" scientists, which could make this sort of biased reading official policy.

Locking a bias in place

As noted in our earlier coverage, the report calls for a complete restructuring of the telecommunications industry, one that would shift it back to where wired connections dominate (the use of radar and short-range wireless tech would also be curtailed). But it also goes beyond regulatory changes; Huss would have European states use their education systems to promote his own flawed understanding.

The report suggests a variety of methods are used to make sure that the populace is convinced there are dangers to wireless technology. States are called on to "develop within different ministries (education, environment and health) targeted information campaigns aimed at teachers, parents, and children to alert them to the specific risks of early, ill-considered, and prolonged use of mobiles and other devices emitting microwaves." Separate campaigns will raise the awareness of "the risks of potentially harmful long-term biological effects on the environment and on human health, especially targeting children, teenagers and young people of reproductive age."

That's a rather tall order, especially since we really don't have a firm grasp of what those risks are.

Fortunately, we're not even at the point where any of this has even been adopted by the Council of Europe, much less any of its member states. Still, Huss is hardly the first to have latched on to ambiguous science and used it to promote an unsupported agenda; the phenomenon is hardly limited to Europe, either. Even if they never produce regulation, these sorts of reports can still cause problems, in that those who seek to promote the same agenda often promote them as evidence of the seriousness of their concerns.

In yesterday's article I was particularly struck by the sensitives who "cannot bear to be anywhere near electromagnetic fields of any kind". Does that include all visible light or only emitters like light bulbs and the sun? Does it include infrared energy or only signals in the microwave range? Does it include the radio and television signals which permeate every location on earth? It's almost like saying you're allergic to air.

I tallied up the wireless devices in my home and was surprised how many there were: wireless speakers, wi-fi, computers, iPads, set top boxes, cellular phones, a micro-cell, cordless phones, etc. But, I've had wi-fi for years, cell phones for a decade, cordless phones for a couple decades. My parents and grand parents had microwave ovens, televisions, radios, light bulbs.

First of all, we have to recognize that Mr. Huss is a politician, not a scientist. He is not bound by any scientific rigor and can therefore spout whatever fantasies percolate to the conscious level in his brain. Secondly, because he is a politician, his primary goals are to gain recognition, secure reelection, and obtain funding, preferably in his pocket. The scientific community is bound by ethics and said rigor to only present evidence that can be demonstrated and proven. Thus they are shackled in this kind of argument. Unfortunately, the non-scientific public is more likely to believe sensationalized fantasy than dull, reliable fact. It also sells more papers and air time.

That was a somewhat shocking article. However, after what I got from it, there are some worrying similarities between the article and the report it is referring to. Both are first creating a threatening scenario (1.radiation with politicians; 2.arsreaders with unscientific behaviour of politicians) and then, at the end of the article, are slightly relativising the horrors. I do not consider this line of argumentation strictly scientific. Therefore the above article is using the some of the methods it is lamenting.However journalism =! science. But also journalism =! politics.

The electro-sensitive have (thus far) prevented installation of public wi-fi hotspots in the downtown area of a (my) state capitol! (I hesitate to wear my digital watch or carry my cell phone downtown...or allow the public law officers to do so, either. Yell fire in a crowded theater if there's a fire.)

In yesterday's article I was particularly struck by the sensitives who "cannot bear to be anywhere near electromagnetic fields of any kind". Does that include all visible light or only emitters like light bulbs and the sun? Does it include infrared energy or only signals in the microwave range? Does it include the radio and television signals which permeate every location on earth? It's almost like saying you're allergic to air.

I tallied up the wireless devices in my home and was surprised how many there were: wireless speakers, wi-fi, computers, iPads, set top boxes, cellular phones, a micro-cell, cordless phones, etc. But, I've had wi-fi for years, cell phones for a decade, cordless phones for a couple decades. My parents and grand parents had microwave ovens, televisions, radios, light bulbs.

Mob: We're sensitive to electromagnetic waves!Scientist: Well, you all drove here without any problems, so at least none of you are sensitive to visible light. Towards which frequencies do you feel sensitive?Person 1: Umm, I don't know...Person 2: Light isn't an electromagnetic wave!Person 3: What's a frequency?

In yesterday's article I was particularly struck by the sensitives who "cannot bear to be anywhere near electromagnetic fields of any kind". Does that include all visible light or only emitters like light bulbs and the sun? Does it include infrared energy or only signals in the microwave range? Does it include the radio and television signals which permeate every location on earth? It's almost like saying you're allergic to air.

I tallied up the wireless devices in my home and was surprised how many there were: wireless speakers, wi-fi, computers, iPads, set top boxes, cellular phones, a micro-cell, cordless phones, etc. But, I've had wi-fi for years, cell phones for a decade, cordless phones for a couple decades. My parents and grand parents had microwave ovens, televisions, radios, light bulbs.

There is enough evidence around that says you ought not sit directly in front of a CRT television or a microwave oven. I'm certain if you were to stick your head inside a microwave oven and turned it on, you would quickly discover that microwaves are in fact dangerous. From what I've heard, the distance you are from the object emitting radiation can make a significant difference. Hence the idea that when we had the CRT, sitting several meters away on a chair or couch was recommended.

As Timmer mentioned, it's hard to know for sure about the effect of cell phone usage since the studies have been short-term and prone to flaws. It took a long time for scientists to discover that cigarettes caused cancer. So, sometimes scientists are a little slow to get important information to the public.

In yesterday's article I was particularly struck by the sensitives who "cannot bear to be anywhere near electromagnetic fields of any kind". Does that include all visible light or only emitters like light bulbs and the sun? Does it include infrared energy or only signals in the microwave range? Does it include the radio and television signals which permeate every location on earth? It's almost like saying you're allergic to air.

I tallied up the wireless devices in my home and was surprised how many there were: wireless speakers, wi-fi, computers, iPads, set top boxes, cellular phones, a micro-cell, cordless phones, etc. But, I've had wi-fi for years, cell phones for a decade, cordless phones for a couple decades. My parents and grand parents had microwave ovens, televisions, radios, light bulbs.

There is enough evidence around that says you ought not sit directly in front of a CRT television or a microwave oven. I'm certain if you were to stick your head inside a microwave oven and turned it on, you would quickly discover that microwaves are in fact dangerous. From what I've heard, the distance you are from the object emitting radiation can make a significant difference. Hence the idea that when we had the CRT, sitting several meters away on a chair or couch was recommended.

As Timmer mentioned, it's hard to know for sure about the effect of cell phone usage since the studies have been short-term and prone to flaws. It took a long time for scientists to discover that cigarettes caused cancer. So, sometimes scientists are a little slow to get important information to the public.

Never the less, there is very little evidence (if any) that electromagnetic fields can cause the sort of reaction described above. In any event, most of these people probably are suffering from psychogenic/psychosomatic symptoms or are suffering from real symptoms of some other disease but, as the article mentions, are misattributing it. You take enough people living near a powerline and one of them is BOUND to have something wrong with them.

@zato,nanaok, and wayneholderWow, it's like you're conflating a scaremongering paper by a politician taking a position which very few scientists support and recommendations (granted, some made by certain groups may be hyperbolic) based on decades of research that the vast majority of scientists concurr with.

There is enough evidence around that says you ought not sit directly in front of a CRT television or a microwave oven. I'm certain if you were to stick your head inside a microwave oven and turned it on, you would quickly discover that microwaves are in fact dangerous. From what I've heard, the distance you are from the object emitting radiation can make a significant difference. Hence the idea that when we had the CRT, sitting several meters away on a chair or couch was recommended.

Putting your head in a microwave is dangerous because the microwaves are absorbed by the body and become heat energy. It's basically the same as burning yourself.

Also, I'm not too sure about what evidence says you shouldn't sit directly in front of a CRT. I found some stuff on x-ray emission, but my impression is that the amount released is far less than what you would get from other sources and is considered safe.

Yes, scientists are terrible, terrible people! We can't believe anything they say! I'm going to go take a flight to Virginia now, by flapping my arms. Scientists might tell me that's virtually impossible, but their values and personalities suck so badly there's simply no reason to trust them. Scientists might question whether there's any evidence of a person successfully flying by flapping their arms (let alone crossing three states in the doing), but their values and personalities suck so badly there's simply no reason to trust them. You may have even heard of scientists telling you that certain materials are constituted of atoms with an orbital magnetic moment which encourages other similar atoms to align along a magnetic field when in close proximity, but their values and personalities suck so badly there's simply no reason to trust them. Those motherfuckers are frequently lying, and getting me pissed.

"Hence the idea that when we had the CRT, sitting several meters away on a chair or couch was recommended. "

It was an ergonomic issue with eye strain, nothing to do with radiation. CRTs emitted radiation somewhere between the human body and natural background and it wasn't even ionizing.

" I'm certain if you were to stick your head inside a microwave oven and turned it on, you would quickly discover that microwaves are in fact dangerous."

If you took a bunch of Vitamin A, you would discover it is in fact dangerousIf you took a bunch of Water, you would discover it is in fact dangerousIf you took a bunch of Vitamin E, you would discover it is in fact dangerousIf you took a bunch of Antibiotics, you would discover it is in fact dangerous

I'm certain if you were to stick your head inside a 1500watt infrared laser and turned it on, you would quickly discover that infrared waves are in fact dangerous. Hell, hold your arm against a 1500watt quartz heater, see how "safe" IR is.

Unless radiation is ionizing, you can be saturated in it. You may get warm, you may get burnt, but cancer isn't an issue.

I forget the article that I read, but there was one from a European country that actually legally kept track of cellphone usage in their death info. They had something like 20 years of data and 30mil people in a database with all the info needed to do a scientific comparison between cellphone users and non. Turned out both groups had the same cancer rates

The interesting part is it turned out that even though they had the same cancer rates, people who used cell phones had a much higher rate of cancer in the ear. They did not have enough data, but they're best assumption was even though cell phones don't cause cancer, they can encourage its growth.

This kind of agrees with another article that I read along time ago about positive healing effects of microwave radiation. Seems mild microwave radiation causes cells to grow faster, which is a bad thing if you have cancer.

"it's hard to know for sure about the effect of cell phone usage since the studies have been short-term"See 20 years and 30mil people with it required by law to record the necessary info.

But we all know you wouldn't be convinced if there was a study with 1billion people over 100 years with the most perfect of data.

Yes, scientists are terrible, terrible people! We can't believe anything they say! I'm going to go take a flight to Virginia now, by flapping my arms. Scientists might tell me that's virtually impossible, but their values and personalities suck so badly there's simply no reason to trust them. Scientists might question whether there's any evidence of a person successfully flying by flapping their arms (let alone crossing three states in the doing), but their values and personalities suck so badly there's simply no reason to trust them. You may have even heard of scientists telling you that certain materials are constituted of atoms with an orbital magnetic moment which encourages other similar atoms to align along a magnetic field when in close proximity, but their values and personalities suck so badly there's simply no reason to trust them. Those motherfuckers are frequently lying, and getting me pissed.

There is enough evidence around that says you ought not sit directly in front of a CRT television or a microwave oven. I'm certain if you were to stick your head inside a microwave oven and turned it on, you would quickly discover that microwaves are in fact dangerous. From what I've heard, the distance you are from the object emitting radiation can make a significant difference. Hence the idea that when we had the CRT, sitting several meters away on a chair or couch was recommended.

As Timmer mentioned, it's hard to know for sure about the effect of cell phone usage since the studies have been short-term and prone to flaws. It took a long time for scientists to discover that cigarettes caused cancer. So, sometimes scientists are a little slow to get important information to the public.

"There is enough evidence around that says you ought not sit directly in front of a CRT television or a microwave oven."And a lot of it is bunk, or based on very old equipment. TVs and Microwaves are shielded to limit the amount of radiation that escapes to safe levels, think of CRT monitors as an example.

"I'm certain if you were to stick your head inside a microwave oven and turned it on, you would quickly discover that microwaves are in fact dangerous"Wow a statement that proves nothing.... big shock... you are right (this is why the design explicitly stops you doing this - without modification), but i think the term often used for such arguments is "reductio ad absurdum". Why not say "walk into an active radiation core and you'll quickly see radiation is dangerous", or "tie a couple bowling balls to your legs, and jump in the river and you'll see water is dangerous". Whilst the statement itself may be true it has little or nothing to do with the premise it proclaims.

"it's hard to know for sure about the effect of cell phone usage since the studies have been short-term and prone to flaws"Maybe your just not very bright... but we can (relatively easily) detect the amount of radiation a device puts out, and there have been a lot of studies on the effect of radiation, put two and two together and you may realise that the science folks probably do have a reasonably good handle on the situation.

If you claim to be sensitive to EM radiation or EMF in general, the only way I know of to experience an essentially zero EMF state is to sit centered inside of a Helmholtz coil, while said apparatus and self are also within many Faraday cages of MuMetal or other materials with comparable properties. This would be a good control for a test.

As far as microwaves go, microwave radiation can expedite the formation of cataracts if one watches food being cooked from closer than 10 cm from the perforated shield. But cataracts are not cancer, and they are easily removed these days.

I think we should have some MD's and / or Electrical Engineers respond formally to this sort of propaganda as it may have more effect on peoples livelyhood than our DNA.

Saying that EM is dangerous by saying microwave ovens are bad for things is like saying a laser is bad for living tissue. Concentrate anything and it is bad. There are communication satellites around the world shining tremendous amounts of EM waves down on all of the earth. The only radiation that hurts living things is ionizing radiation.

Wow, I come in to complain about the preachy tone of the article and there are Climate Change ruffians with their own Aurich Lawson type photo illustrations. Dudes your stuff isn't going to sell well here. You are way too much ethos and not enough logos. If you want to punch holes in current climate theory try presenting scientific evidence and not evidence of persecution. Martyrs are persecuted, scientific theories are rationally evaluated.

Wow, I come in to complain about the preachy tone of the article and there are Climate Change ruffians with their own Aurich Lawson type photo illustrations. Dudes your stuff isn't going to sell well here. You are way too much ethos and not enough logos. If you want to punch holes in current climate theory try presenting scientific evidence and not evidence of persecution. Martyrs are persecuted, scientific theories are rationally evaluated.

John, more science, less preaching please.

Climatologists are full of shit. We're exiting an ice age, so the planet is heating up slowly. Carbon is just about the most common substance on earth.

@zato,nanaok, and wayneholderWow, it's like you're conflating a scaremongering paper by a politician taking a position which very few scientists support and recommendations (granted, some made by certain groups may be hyperbolic) based on decades of research that the vast majority of scientists concurr with.

Or something. Maybe I'm misreading.

It's hard to miss the obvious parallels in the tactics described to spread the word on this new scare and what I've watched happen to my daughter in school as she's force fed her only one perspective on climate and other environmental issues. Free speech requires the ability for all sides to speak and wrapping something in the mantle of "science" does not give one a free pass to denigrate the opinion of others as I've watched the author of this article, Mr Timmer, do many times on this web site, either through selective omission, or equally selective inclusion of articles that promote only one position. This is the first time I've posted on this site but, as one has already insinuated, I'm not part of an organized "campaign" I'm simply a Dad who's tired of all the intellectual bullies intent on labeling anyone with a contrary point of view as some kind hayseed, or religious zealot.

At 58, I'm old enough to have watched this pattern play out many times before. I lived through the "Limit to Growth" scares sponsored by the, so called, Club of Rome. At the time, being young, and, I'm ashamed to say, just as intellectually arrogant as many members of today's scientific in crowd seem to be, I bought into it, hook, line and sinker. It was only later that I realized that my own desire to feel smarter than the rest of the world had made me an easy dupe for a pseudo scientific conjecture wrapped up and presented as a "consensus" of fact.

Wow, I come in to complain about the preachy tone of the article and there are Climate Change ruffians with their own Aurich Lawson type photo illustrations. Dudes your stuff isn't going to sell well here. You are way too much ethos and not enough logos. If you want to punch holes in current climate theory try presenting scientific evidence and not evidence of persecution. Martyrs are persecuted, scientific theories are rationally evaluated.

John, more science, less preaching please.

Climatologists are full of shit. We're exiting an ice age, so the planet is heating up slowly. Carbon is just about the most common substance on earth.

Whew! That was close. I didn't realise the issue was so simple and black and white. One thing is for certain, we haven't seen any strange weather activity which might indicate a possible abrupt change in climate.

Wow, I come in to complain about the preachy tone of the article and there are Climate Change ruffians with their own Aurich Lawson type photo illustrations. Dudes your stuff isn't going to sell well here. You are way too much ethos and not enough logos. If you want to punch holes in current climate theory try presenting scientific evidence and not evidence of persecution. Martyrs are persecuted, scientific theories are rationally evaluated.

John, more science, less preaching please.

Climatologists are full of shit. We're exiting an ice age, so the planet is heating up slowly. Carbon is just about the most common substance on earth.

Whew! That was close. I didn't realise the issue was so simple and black and white. One thing is for certain, we haven't seen any strange weather activity which might indicate a possible abrupt change in climate.

It is happening. The drama/controversy is created by the reality that it very difficult to predict what the actual effects will be. Hence the ongoing research and development of models and theories.

Even if all the worst case scenarios are wrong it's in our best interests to control carbon production, simply because it makes us (the planet as a whole) way more energy efficient and energy is the real problem we face in the immediate future.

The only global warming connection I could make while reading this article (and I was thinking about it before hitting the comments page) was that the global warming deniers and the EM-sensitives likely suffer from similar psychological problems.

It is happening. The drama/controversy is created by the reality that it very difficult to predict what the actual effects will be. Hence the ongoing research and development of models and theories.

Even if all the worst case scenarios are wrong it's in our best interests to control carbon production, simply because it makes us (the planet as a whole) way more energy efficient and energy is the real problem we face in the immediate future.

That was double speak. I think real scientists know that weather is slightly abnormal, and the world is heating up. Again, we're leaving an ice age. That is expected results of such a thing. This carbon and energy stuff is an ad hoc hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis if you're unfamiliar.

Both articles on this topic have referred to the Council of Europe as Europe in the title. The Council of Europe is not the EU. They have no authority to change laws. From my understanding, they're more like lobbyists.

Though ambiguous, it seems to confirm that the COE is more for "promoting human rights", etc than making laws. There was another article I saw of the Head of the EU reassuring that the proposition the COE put forward wasn't law because they have no law-giving authority. Sorry, I can't find the link at the moment.

At 58, I'm old enough to have watched this pattern play out many times before. I lived through the "Limit to Growth" scares sponsored by the, so called, Club of Rome. At the time, being young, and, I'm ashamed to say, just as intellectually arrogant as many members of today's scientific in crowd seem to be, I bought into it, hook, line and sinker. It was only later that I realized that my own desire to feel smarter than the rest of the world had made me an easy dupe for a pseudo scientific conjecture wrapped up and presented as a "consensus" of fact.

Check that modern update on the club of rome stuff. I'll take a quote out of the abstract:

Quote:

Contrary to popular belief, The Limits to Growth scenarios by the team of analysts from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology did not predict world collapse by the end of the 20th Century.

Unfortunately for most people, it actually requires significant reading and comprehension skills.

It goes on to say.. (again out of the abstract)

Quote:

This paper focuses on a comparison of recently collated historical data for 1970-2000 with scenarios presented in the Limits to Growth. The analysis shows that 30 years of historical data compares favorably with key features of a business-as-usual scenario called the 'standard run' scenario, which results in collapse of the global system midway through the 21st century.

Quote:

The data does not compare well with other scenarios involving comprehensive use of technology or stabilizing behaviour and policies. The results indicate the particular importance of understanding and controlling global pollution.